Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

D.C. dysfunction reflects nation

The nation’s frustration with Washington is near epic levels. Well before the debt ceiling crisis, nearly two-thirds of Americans said that the country was in a state of decline, and this latest mess can only serve to drive that home.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

In fact, something dramatic is happening throughout the country — to very little fanfare. To a degree never before seen in the nation’s history, Americans today are becoming cloistered in networks that shield them from neighbors emerging from disparate backgrounds, and harboring different interests and concerns. Without more regular interaction or contact with people who live outside their particular bubble, fewer Americans are willing to abide legislators who agree to painful compromises considered to be in the broad public interest.

To be sure, the 20th century marked incredible strides in the effort to erode divisions defined by racial and ethnic prejudice. But over the last few decades, a new sort of “honeycoming” has emerged, erecting a different sociological architecture.

Pieces of the bigger story have begun to emerge. As Bill Bishop found in “The Big Sort,” Americans are choosing to live in more monolithic neighborhoods. As Eli Pariser revealed in “The Filter Bubble,” the Web is trapping them in pockets of pre-sorted information. The rhythms of the service economy tend to put like-minded people in cubicles next to one another. Blackberries and iPhones, Skype and bargain airlines have entirely changed the way we spend our time.

Now, a more complete picture is coming into view. On the whole, Americans have been empowered to invest a greater bulk of their time and attention first, in their most intimate relationships — like those with their immediate family and best friends; and second, in people who share a single common interest — like those who post comments to the same car collector blog.

Readers' Comments (35)

DC is riddled with dysfunction and members of either party could care less. Why? Because it is all about winning elections. Why? Because there is too much money involved with being a politician. It is time to role back the salaries. In 2008 Obama, Clinton, and McCain all showed us you don't need to be full time to do their jobs. Now we have Bachmann, Paul, etc. demonstrating again that these positions could just a well be performed by part time legislators. Then let's fulfill their wishes. No more retirement, no more health care, part time employment. After all they all think it is good enough for the general population or they would be working to do something to reverse the trend. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want to sit around and drink tea, get the hell out of the way. Some of us want action. There is a new website coming for "Shrink Government from the Top Down" you'll be able to sign a petition.

Mr. Dunkelman's "grand bargain" thesis falters on the fact that our president and the Democrats were very willing to compromise. They, too, came from some comb in our "honeycombed" society. It is only the D.C. Republicans that refused to compromise and they are not because they see uniform, chronic opposition as both hurting Obama and the economy and helping themselves politically (for they plan to try to blame Obama and the Democrats for all Republican damage done). It has always been true, as Aristotle noted long ago, that birds of a feather flock together. Given the surprisingly limiting, if not isolating, effect of cellphones and computers, there probably are more large groups of narrow-minded, unsympathetic, intolerant people. But the internet and cellphones can be liberating tools too, radically widening our world and increasing our sympathetic powers and tolerance -- even our ability to love our neighbor (and that neighbor might be in Sudan, Egypt or Japan).

Barry lied, Joe Wilson was vilified — Remember when Obama was speaking before Congress and claimed Obamacare wouldn’t benefit illegal immigrants, and Joe Wilson was all like, “You lie”? Remember how outraged all the libs were? Ahhh, memories. As C.J. Ciaramella reports, Wilson was right: “In an appearance on Fox News’ America Live on Wednesday, Wilson said a recent award of $28 million to community health care centers around the country will no doubt benefit illegal immigrants, despite Obama’s pledge. Department of Health and Human Services spokesmen have confirmed $8.5 million of the grant will go to centers serving migrant and seasonal farm workers, saying patients will not be asked about immigration status. The centers will offer primary care to all residents who come in. ‘It is clearly providing money that should be going to American citizens to illegal immigrants,’ Wilson said. ‘It’s even worse than I thought. They won’t even ask for status.’” Just because he was right doesn’t mean anything. Joe Wilson was a terrorist way back before the left was desperate enough to call their opponents terrorists.

Mr. Dunkelman's "grand bargain" thesis falters on the fact that our president and the Democrats were very willing to compromise.

Total BS from you as usual. Democrats locked arms and said we will not cut but a token amount of spending and that wont happen for years. They do not even believe we have a spending problem. Now that is total delusion.

I have a theory, that I've quietly had for years . . . . . quietly, because I'm a fan. But I think that the giant rift in the country . . . . the great uncivil divide . . . . can be traced directly to Rush Limbaugh. NOT because Rush is particularly blatant in his incivility or vitriol, but because he is so darned good at what he does. His opinions, while hard and firm and determined, are usually also well-supported by tremendous archival research . . . . . i.e., he can back up what he says. That's not to say that "Rush is always right", but Rush is hard to argue with.

On the left, or in the middle, there's never been another media spokesman that could begin to rival Rush's authority or influence. Talk shows voicing opposing opinions have come and quickly gone, leaving, for the most part, Rush.

The problem is somewhat similar to the old Harry Truman quote that goes something like "they thought I was giving them Hell. I was just telling them the truth, and they THOUGHT it was Hell". Rush's opponents are left to respond in the manner they THINK he is speaking - loud, shrill and hateful. Which, in turn, encourages Rush's supporters to be loud, shrill and hateful. Everybody's trying to be Rush, from either the right or the left, and only Rush seems to be able to do that.

I can't agree but I think that is close. It isn't social isolation from different classes and groups that is to blame for the increasing polarization seen in American, that has always been the case so it doesn't describe the changes we have seen in recent years. More to the point, people seek out a like-minded belief community and avoid and disparage "others" who disagree. They gravitate to those who confirm their own worldview and, when they have doubts about their theories and beliefs concerning what is wrong and what is right, they find validation among those who agree. That too is nothing new.

What is new is the ease with which they can access those belief communities. The internet (and to some degree talk radio-a format providing ideas and talking points but generally a one way street) have permitted groups of like thinkers (especially among the right since they tend to be more absolutist about problems and solutions and more certain they possess the "truth" than liberals) to easily access each other at any time of day (often using a computer in the workplace). In those forums, unlike the "real" world where one is often not sure an acquaintance shares the same version of the truth and there is a natural reluctance to share strong opinions, the individual can make an anonymous statement of belief for which there are no consequences. That experience of expressing emotional ideas, usually angry and directed at the "other", acts as a catharsis. The catharsis is self-reinforcing and addictive. The belief in the beliefs grows stronger when reinforced by a like-minded community. The sense of release and exhilaration experienced in expressing angry, otherwise forbidden, emotions is something the individual wants to experience again.

Politicians, like Perry and Bachmann, channel the anger, and the direct, unapologetic and uncivil way it is expressed, but publicly and not anonymously. That public representation of previously anonymous thought gives them credibility with those who weren’t certain their ideas represented the truth (“Rick Perry, the Texas governor, said exactly what I’ve been saying for years on the internet- I must be right”). When the politician goes public with the anger and incivility the believer has been given license to do the same and we see the result in demonstrations and town hall meetings.

Obama is the most partisan president in modern history. He is actively pushing America towards civil war. He calls Americans enemies, terrorists and everything else under the sun.. so what do you expect?

There is only one person to blame for the state of hate in this country and it is ALL OBAMA'S FAULT.

I have a theory, that I've quietly had for years . . . . . quietly, because I'm a fan. But I think that the giant rift in the country . . . . the great uncivil divide . . . . can be traced directly to Rush Limbaugh. NOT because Rush is particularly blatant in his incivility or vitriol, but because he is so darned good at what he does. His opinions, while hard and firm and determined, are usually also well-supported by tremendous archival research . . . . . i.e., he can back up what he says. That's not to say that "Rush is always right", but Rush is hard to argue with.

On the left, or in the middle, there's never been another media spokesman that could begin to rival Rush's authority or influence. Talk shows voicing opposing opinions have come and quickly gone, leaving, for the most part, Rush.

The problem is somewhat similar to the old Harry Truman quote that goes something like "they thought I was giving them Hell. I was just telling them the truth, and they THOUGHT it was Hell". Rush's opponents are left to respond in the manner they THINK he is speaking - loud, shrill and hateful. Which, in turn, encourages Rush's supporters to be loud, shrill and hateful. Everybody's trying to be Rush, from either the right or the left, and only Rush seems to be able to do that.

Lol, What delusional nonsense! You "think" that fat drug addict is right so that makes him right. Get your logical problem? You believe what he says and therefore it is "true" and it can't be refuted (because if anyone tried it would just be some angry liberal who wouldn't admit the truth). Let's try something different here. Limbaugh gives the "true believers" some old time religion. Like old time religion there is always an unsubstantiated first premise that all the believers have to accept and from that first premise everything else follows. In real old time religion the first premise is "God exists and Christ was his son" - once you accept that the rest is easy. For Limbaugh the premise is "Democrats are destroying America" . You and the other true believers buy into the unproven foundational argument and all the rest flows naturally- he shows you how they are doing it. But if the premise were "Democrats are saving America" he could use the same evidence to prove that. What a pair of buffoons- you and Rush.

The right has Sean, the Left has Rachel. The Right has National Review Online, the Left has The Nation. If you live in a Conservative middle class neighborhood in the the Southern Bible Belt sooner or later you will either find things in common with your neighbors and slowly move toward their position or you will be miserable and move to a more Liberal state. Or visa versa.

The thousands of bureaucrats and elected oficials doing the people's work in Washington were all sent there by at least the 50% +1 constituents who agreed with their point of view. That Washington doesn't work is the responsibility of the electorate.

We have seen what happens when major legislation is passed without a single vote from the opposition in an undivided Congress with a President of the same party. The blowback is monumental. Absent the Democratic health care legislation we would not now be dealing with the Tea Party and a possibly successful repeal campaign. We are currently seeing the results of a divided government which is a financial downgrade due to the inability of the two parties to agree on anything including the color of the sky.

Our choices these days are between the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. Government is not only broke, it is broken due to a failure to understand the disasterous consequences of a refusal to compromise. As our states and regions get redder or bluer the willingness to compromise erodes apace.

If you are not afraid of the logical conclusion of this process you should be. Very. At best we will become the American Commonwealth of several independent regions. At worst we will become like the detritus of the old Soviet Union.

How our communities are organized and the lack of "mixing" socially might add to our inability to compromise, but I do not think that is at the heart of the disfunction in D.C.

D.C. is plagued by the fact that the average American's purchasing power has been reduced over the past decade. As soon as we deviated from the strong dollar policy with stimulus money following the dot.com bubble bursting, we've been consistently devaluing our dollar in the interest of spiking economic activity.

Additionally, our perception of purchasing strength has dropped as other countries rapidly developed and we saw our higher paying jobs disappear.

So we're all feeling less "rich" than in the 90's. That is forcing us as a nation to revisit our spending priorities similar to any family with reduced income. We start to really question the role of government and how our tax dollars are spent. This will continue, I feel, to be a driving force behind our disfunction for the next decade. Those that have will want to elect people to help them keep it, those that don't will elect those who will fight to keep giving them the same entitlement lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

Wow, such timely commentary! How long has the discussion of the self-segregation by political views been around? 5-10 years?

And I am very tired of the "dysfunction" argument. The system is working quite well - it is the outcomes that many have a concern about. That and the conflict. People abhor conflict. "You mean you actually disagree with me?!"

Let's review the fact set... Life expectancy is rising and birth mortality is falling in almost every country on the planet. As recently as the middle of the 19th century famine and pestilence stalked the land - in every continent on the planet (including the U.S.). People defined as poor in this country have more amenities (TV, car, computer, satellite or cable TV, refrigerator, etc.) than "middle class" people in Europe today - and more amenities than "middle class" people just 10 years ago.

My low mark for human "dysfunction" was the period between 1030 - 1033. The famine in Europe resulted in mothers eating their children, people digging up graves to eat the recently buried and children lured into forests to be murdered and eaten.

Please. The system is working and working well. No-one is shooting at me and there is hot water coming from my tap when I need it. We are living in the polity at the peak of human civilization and debating how to increase our standard of living just a little bit more.

Mr. Dunkelman, you make a good point. The fact that most posters on this comment thread disagree with you while pointing fingers at "the other side" only serves to prove that point.

Don't get me wrong, those living inside the forbidden city that is the Beltway are primarily responsible for our nation's problems. Something's wrong with society in general, though. That something used to be called "specialization" by those who would benefit most from it. "Honeycoming," however, is a far more fitting term.

Having been a fairly Conservative poster on HuffPost since 2008, I can assure you that unless you are consistently rude and outrageously inflamitory you won't even be flagged much less censored. No one even cares about ad-hominem posts. Politely stating your objections to any idea or policy won't get you booted off the site.

Well Americans are not citizens anymore, they are consumers. That's our Number One reason for being in the world, isn't it? To consume, consume, and consume some more? We are worthless when we cannot afford to consume since our very essence is wrapped up in being the world's biggest consumers.

We have to have those cheap black $2.99 mens socks from Walmart. Matters not that Walmart cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then again, since wages have flatlined since the latter part of the 70's, we probably would have experienced an economic crisis before now if it had not been for the advent of cheap credit, access to credit, and betting the house equity over the course of 20 years with low interest rates and lines of equty and refinancing to keep paying off those credit cards.

Well, here we are with our facebook pages and tweeting about nothing more than the next thought through our heads. Wow. What progress.

"Please. The system is working and working well. No-one is shooting at me and there is hot water coming from my tap when I need it. We are living in the polity at the peak of human civilization and debating how to increase our standard of living just a little bit more."

I think you are in for a rude awakening.

lynnrobb: Aug. 18, 2011 - 11:03 AM EST

"We have seen what happens when major legislation is passed without a single vote from the opposition in an undivided Congress with a President of the same party. The blowback is monumental. Absent the Democratic health care legislation we would not now be dealing with the Tea Party and a possibly successful repeal campaign. We are currently seeing the results of a divided government which is a financial downgrade due to the inability of the two parties to agree on anything including the color of the sky.

Our choices these days are between the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. Government is not only broke, it is broken due to a failure to understand the disasterous consequences of a refusal to compromise. As our states and regions get redder or bluer the willingness to compromise erodes apace."

I'm not clear what your point is- you are simply describing the situation- which we all understand, the opinion piece was looking to explicate the reason for that situation. I would also disagree with the assertion that the "Tea Party" came about because of health care legislation- that was only fuel on the fire. The "Tea Party" is essentially a white racial backlash against recent events. The election of a black president was the seminal event that resulted in actual conception of the "Tea Party" but you can see its inchoate outline as far back as the previous administration when Bush made a reasonable proposal for immigration reform. Those who would later constitute the "Tea Party" created such an uproar that although the idea was originally supported by many repubs they quickly backed off (e.g. John McCain who then had to survive a "Tea Party" attempt to oust him in the next election, the very conservative Bob Bennett who was ousted by the extreme tea partier- Mike Lee). Immigration reform was a much bigger causus belli in the southwest than elsewhere but it was the first rallying point for the future "Tea Party" nationally and those republicans who supported the republican led efforts at immigration reform were punished at least in part on that basis by the future "Tea Party".

When a failed Presidency has little more to offer than empty platitudes cloaked in the tired and desperate rhetoric of a man overwhelmed by his circumstance - when the Politics of Personal Destruction supplants an earnest effort to address the issues in a direct and substantive way - when a sense of entitlement becomes the order of the day and when the dialogue is framed in a plaintive screed that rejects the mantle of responsibility for our Economic woes - then it is indeed time to offer the keys of 1600 Pennsylvania to someone who embraces a bolder vision for America.